- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: <hal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:40:50 -0700

Saibal writes:

*> Yes, this is inherent in the construction of the CSO. s(t) has to be
*

*> smaller than 1 for any finite t. But what about transfinite values for t?
*

*> Since transfinite numbers can be described in a mathematical consistent way,
*

*> it is possible to define a mathematical model of the CSO surviving beyond
*

*> s(t) = 1 . Following Tegmark one should thus believe that the CSO will
*

*> experience this moment.
*

I had made a similar point in my message at

http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m2178.html. The way I posed the

question was, can you have a universe with two subsystems, such that one

sees the other do an infinite amount of computation? This gets away

from what I see as arbitrary assumptions about which one's measure of

time is "correct". I agree that the question relates to the existence

of transfinites, and that this fits better into Tegmark's approach than

Schmidhuber's. Even in a UTM universe though we could postulate a TM

which executes an infinite number of steps.

Hal

Received on Fri Oct 13 2000 - 14:55:35 PDT

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:40:50 -0700

Saibal writes:

I had made a similar point in my message at

http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m2178.html. The way I posed the

question was, can you have a universe with two subsystems, such that one

sees the other do an infinite amount of computation? This gets away

from what I see as arbitrary assumptions about which one's measure of

time is "correct". I agree that the question relates to the existence

of transfinites, and that this fits better into Tegmark's approach than

Schmidhuber's. Even in a UTM universe though we could postulate a TM

which executes an infinite number of steps.

Hal

Received on Fri Oct 13 2000 - 14:55:35 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*